tell me you do not feel ashamed...

[oldstock]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

I assumed nothing. Discussion here is among people who usually do not have the influence to do anything at this juncture, especially in the pre-pharm forum. The things I have heard discussed at pharmacy meetings involve several things that will not be popular decisions. Some current thoughts are not feasible until the industry and profession has navigated the current change in healthcare (ACA). Among the most open of these comments is the goal to require residency for all pharmacy practice. Some are advocating pushing this change faster than the residency programs can handle in order to place a gate on entrance to the profession that we do have more control over. As residents are paid, this change might bypass the anti-trust problems that plague any suggested changes to the degree programs.

Everything suggested in the letter is beyond the control of the federal government. Even the government can violate Anti-Trust laws, without actually changing the anti-trust act.

you did not respond to many of my points in my last post to you...

regarding anti-trust laws, my responses are here,

all that sacarsm and kidding asides, antitrust would have no place in an entirely free market. The anti-trust laws are governmental regulations to ensure and maintain a healthy competition in the market,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law

The point is, we are not a free market by strict definition !! 🙂

GPA and 70% or whatever numbers would also have no place in an entirely free market. Those numbers would be defined by supply and demand, i.e. how many applicants out there for the application cycle and how many available schools/seats are there for all those applications.

So to solve this problem of uncontrolled and irresponsible expansion of schools, there must be some sorts of regulations to restrict or reduce the supply side of the equation to ensure and maintain high quality and standards of the pharmacy admission/education and profession as a whole. If not, pharmacy is going the way law and business did.

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/recent-response-from-the-acpe-leave-pharmacy.1077650/

 

[KidPharmD]

you did not respond to many of my points in my last post to you...

regarding anti-trust laws, my responses are here,





http://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/recent-response-from-the-acpe-leave-pharmacy.1077650/

How about we agree only to discuss this in one thread - let's say the original thread instead of your reposts. It is getting confusing when this is being discussed in three places.

 

[blueheron]

you missed the whole point about equalizing the playing field and different focus and scope. Biochem is a course that is being offered at different kinds of levels out there. Biochem is also very important to pharmacy and most pharmacy schools want to ensure that all their pharmacy students are at the needed level of knowledge and understanding for pharmacy study, Pharmerjohn said that very well above. Again, I see you might be biased because you go to a school that does not teach biochem. Again, biochem is even being taught in medical schools despite many of their students coming in with advanced degrees.

I'm sure future employers would prefer I was learning "pharmacy oriented" biochem and anatomy as opposed to having 4-5 more months of rotations and gaining actual clinical experience.

 

[DruggieDoRight]

I assumed nothing. Discussion here is among people who usually do not have the influence to do anything at this juncture, especially in the pre-pharm forum. The things I have heard discussed at pharmacy meetings involve several things that will not be popular decisions. Some current thoughts are not feasible until the industry and profession has navigated the current change in healthcare (ACA). Among the most open of these comments is the goal to require residency for all pharmacy practice. Some are advocating pushing this change faster than the residency programs can handle in order to place a gate on entrance to the profession that we do have more control over. As residents are paid, this change might bypass the anti-trust problems that plague any suggested changes to the degree programs.

Everything suggested in the letter is beyond the control of the federal government. Even the government can violate Anti-Trust laws, without actually changing the anti-trust act.

This is exactly what I suggested in previous threads. It may not be now, but sooner rather than later residencies will become a requirement to combat the increasing number of schools opening. It's not popular, but I can see it becoming the norm over anything that violates anti-trust laws (although to be fair the fed doesn't enforce these all to well imo). What were the other suggestions at these meetings?

 

[oldstock]

I think we might be caught up in the names of courses. I imagine it is likely that the subjects taught in Biochem at UF are taught in other courses at UT with only the Biochem basics being left out.

very funny lol 🙂

 

[oldstock]

How about we agree only to discuss this in one thread - let's say the original thread instead of your reposts. It is getting confusing when this is being discussed in three places.

yeah, you are right on this one. This thread started with too many negative posts. How about we starting over on that thread of HobbitJane ??

 

[oldstock]

I'm sure future employers would prefer I was learning "pharmacy oriented" biochem and anatomy as opposed to having 4-5 more months of rotations and gaining actual clinical experience.

both are important imho.

 

[KidPharmD]

both are important imho.

I think you would find doing both would be difficult without giving up all your summers.

 

[oldstock]

I think you would find doing both would be difficult without giving up all your summers.

well if I decided to go on with this, I would probably be working all summer anyway if I can find a job where my school is...

 

[pharmerjohn]

I don't think requiring a 4-year degree will accomplish anything. Will it make people become better pharmacists?

edit... I think @oldstock concerns about the expansion of pharm school are legitimate. To dismiss his concerns by calling him/her names is unwarranted.

I did not dismiss oldstock's concerns about the rapid expansion of pharmacy school. The concern is real and countless threads have been made regarding the matter, so no disagreements there.

I already posted my reasons for the 4-year degree requirement above, so here's a copy and paste of what I said earlier:

The requirement of a bachelor’s degree upon matriculation will do more than gauge the preparedness of students for pharmacy school. It will force students to weigh their options on whether to pursue pharmacy or another healthcare field. Countless students gunned for pharmacy because it’s “the quickest route to $100k salary.” By doing 2 years of pre-reqs and 3-4 years of pharmacy school, these students picked pharmacy primarily because it’s the quickest path. Will they still go for pharmacy if a bachelor’s degree is required? Some may, but given the fact that many are looking for the “shortest route,” it will undoubtedly force them to ponder the question of whether it’s “worth it” to them – they might even opt for a different health profession or pursue something else altogether. It’s no panacea, but it’s a logical step in the right direction. Furthermore, the 4 years that students spend getting their bachelor’s degree regardless of the major, will do more than gauge their preparedness. Within that time they will get the opportunity experience college life, find their passions, and learn invaluable lessons that will make them better individuals and hopefully, better pharmacists. In short, the benefits are certainly there for both the student and the profession.

 

[BestDoctorEver]

@pharmerjohn... Pharmacy has one problem now and this problem is the crazy expansion of pharm schools. Fixing that will take care of all the other stuff.

 

[vasoolraja]

I think it doesn't hurt to learn biochemistry again in pharmacy school even if we have learned it during our undergraduate years. I think a biochemistry course offered at the graduate level will give us additional insight into the subject.

 

[vasoolraja]

@pharmerjohn... Pharmacy has one problem now and this problem is the crazy expansion of pharm schools. Fixing that will take care of all the other stuff.

I think the best way is to increase the accreditation standards of a school. As outlined in the above posts, some of the requirements would be to require accepted applicants to have a Bachelor's degree, a minimum of 70 percentile on PCAT; and further, residencies have to be made mandatory. Such regulations would counter the saturation problem.

 

[pharmerjohn]

@pharmerjohn... Pharmacy has one problem now and this problem is the crazy expansion of pharm schools. Fixing that will take care of all the other stuff.

I absolutely agree. However, there's no single step that will resolve the issue, rather the problem can be mitigated through a series to steps as vasoolraja metioned above. Requiring a bachelor's degree is one step and is a push in the right direction.

 

[BestDoctorEver]

I think the best way is to increase the accreditation standards of a school. As outlined in the above posts, some of the requirements would be to require accepted applicants to have a Bachelor's degree, a minimum of 70 percentile on PCAT; and further, residencies have to be made mandatory. Such regulations would counter the saturation problem.

Many schools will have trouble filling up their classes... This won't work IMO.

 

[BestDoctorEver]

@pharmerjohn... Let's say med schools don't require a bachelor's degree now, do you really think getting into med school will be less competitive? The answer is most likely 'no'. But if you open 100 more med schools and allow them to take 100+ applicants even if these schools require a master, I guarantee you it will become less competitive. This is simple logic IMO. Even if one needs the bare bone prereqs to get into pharm school, if there were not that many spots, it would have been very competitive because of the nice salary and job security... In fact it was that way about 7+ years ago.

 

[pharmerjohn]

Many schools will have trouble filling up their classes... This won't work IMO.

That would be a goal, as it will force schools to raise their standards.

 

[blueheron]

I think it doesn't hurt to learn biochemistry again in pharmacy school even if we have learned it during our undergraduate years. I think a biochemistry course offered at the graduate level will give us additional insight into the subject.

It should be incorporated into other courses if need be. You should have enough background to start pharmacology and med chem right away, not have to learn biochem/micro/AP first. I notice most of the schools that teach it don't require it as a prereq, so you are paying pharmacy tuition to learn undergrad material, and taking time in those four years that could be put toward something more beneficial. Since a large portion of applicants now have degrees (at good schools) or at least 3 years the extra hours won't kill you to take them beforehand.

 

[pharmerjohn]

Let's say med schools don't require a bachelor's degree now, do you really think getting into med school will be less competitive? The answer is most likely 'no'. But if you open 100 more med schools and allow them to take 100+ applicants even if these schools require a master, I guarantee you it will become less competitive. This is simple logic IMO. Even if one needs the bare bone prereqs to get into pharm school, if there were not that many spots, it would have been very competitive because of the nice salary and job security... In fact it was that way about 7 years ago.

I agree that the problem lies in the number of schools that are open, resulting in a surplus students and lowered standards. However, it's difficult to compare medical school to pharmacy school for several reasons. Among the various reasons are program length and professional lifestyle. These differences result in the attraction of different kinds of individuals into the profession.

Edit: Also note that the number medical schools are limited by the number of residency positions available. Such is not the case with pharmacy school, so a different limiting factor must be in placed to keep the number of students in check.

 

[BestDoctorEver]

I agree that the problem lies in the number of schools that are open, resulting in a surplus students and lowered standards. However, it's difficult to compare medical school to pharmacy school for several reasons. Among the various reasons are program length and professional lifestyle. These differences result in the attraction of different kinds of individuals into the profession.

That is SDN bologna! If ten years from now, physicians have a hard time to get a job with 300k student loan that they have to pay back, you tell me how competitive med school will be. Radiology and Anesthesiology were getting competitive, then boom over saturation happens due to many CRNAs entering the market... what do you think happen? Step 1 score for these specialties is decreasing...

 

[BestDoctorEver]

Edit: Also note that the number medical schools are limited by the number of residency positions available. Such is not the case with pharmacy school, so a different limiting factor must be in placed to keep the number of students in check.

You make my point...

Edit... You think pharm school became competitive 7+ years ago because there were some kind of 'drug-dispensing awakening' among the US population? It became competitive because many learned and heard stories about pharmacists making 100+k/year working 40hrs/week with no trouble getting job(s)... I am not saying people back then went solely to pharm school because of the nice salary and job security, but these two incentives were the MAIN driving factors of the competitiveness nature of pharm school.

 

[pharmerjohn]

That is SDN bologna! If ten years from now, physicians have a hard time to get a job with 300k student loan that they have to pay back, you tell me how competitive med school will be. Radiology and Anesthesiology were getting competitive, then boom over saturation happens due to many CRNAs entering the market... what do you think happen? Step 1 score for these specialties is decreasing...

Like I said, it’s different for medical school than it is for pharmacy school. The limiting factor for medical school is the limited number of available residency positions that result a limited number of schools. This creates a sort of bottleneck effects and results in increased competition. Also note that I did not say this is the only factor that affects competition, as various other factors can come into play that could shift the entrance competition of a particular profession. Encroachment of other healthcare providers on MD/DO's responsibilities/specialties is one such example. However, it’s important to note where these factors lie in the overall timeline of the profession (for pharmacy, it’s mostly pre-matriculation, while for medicine it’s post-matriculation). Therefore, even in the scenario that you provided, competition into medical school will not change much in the long run, but competition into certain specialties that see increased competition from other providers (like anesthesia) will see a drop in interest and a potential drop in Step 1 scores. It comes down to where in the time line the bottleneck effect occurs, as comparing something prior to matriculation versus something that's post graduate is really like comparing apples to oranges.

 

[pharmerjohn]

You make my point...

Edit... You think pharm school became competitive 7+ years ago because there were some kind of 'drug-dispensing awakening' among the US population? It became competitive because many learned and heard stories about pharmacists making 100+k/year working 40hrs/week with no trouble getting job(s)... I am not saying people back then went solely to pharm school because of the nice salary and job security, but these two incentives were the MAIN driving factors of the competitiveness nature of pharm school.

Money and job security are always the driving factors across all fields. The reason why pharmacy was competitive 7+ years ago is because of the number of schools available versus the number of applicants - this goes back to the bottleneck effects. Today, there are more schools, so we see a drop in competition (wider neck = greater flow).

 

[FarmACollegeE]

I don't think requiring a 4-year degree will accomplish anything. Will it make people become better pharmacists?

Yes, it absolutely will. How? It adds another strainer to the applicant pool and filters out the "quick fix" crowd as well as the "CC to Pharm" crowd. It'll force both of those groups, who quite often and typically DO have very qualified applicants who would make great professionals, to commit to a process (4 year degree program) that is critical in developing good habits, gaining new experiences, going through a rigorous/stressful process, etc. Your 4-year degree is sooooooo much more about your development as a functioning member of society than it is about your "book smarts".

Those in the field who are against a 4-year on principle perplex me. There would be a major shortage of students initially, most of them being the types who are lowering the quality of student, eventually causing a removal of the joke programs from the field and that's exactly why it will never happen.

 

[BestDoctorEver]

Yes, it absolutely will. How? It adds another strainer to the applicant pool and filters out the "quick fix" crowd as well as the "CC to Pharm" crowd. It'll force both of those groups, who quite often and typically DO have very qualified applicants who would make great professionals, to commit to a process (4 year degree program) that is critical in developing good habits, gaining new experiences, going through a rigorous/stressful process, etc. Your 4-year degree is sooooooo much more about your development as a functioning member of society than it is about your "book smarts".

Those in the field who are against a 4-year on principle perplex me. There would be a major shortage of students initially, most of them being the types who are lowering the quality of student, eventually causing a removal of the joke programs from the field and that's exactly why it will never happen.

I really don't think adding two more year will deter MOST people from pursuing a PharmD degree. My impression now is that most people who got into pharm school have a 4-year degree. The solution that will have the greatest and quickest positive impact in decreasing the outflow of pharmacists in the market is to decrease amount of spots available by preventing schools from opening...

 

[oldstock]

Yes, it absolutely will. How? It adds another strainer to the applicant pool and filters out the "quick fix" crowd as well as the "CC to Pharm" crowd. It'll force both of those groups, who quite often and typically DO have very qualified applicants who would make great professionals, to commit to a process (4 year degree program) that is critical in developing good habits, gaining new experiences, going through a rigorous/stressful process, etc. Your 4-year degree is sooooooo much more about your development as a functioning member of society than it is about your "book smarts".

Those in the field who are against a 4-year on principle perplex me. There would be a major shortage of students initially, most of them being the types who are lowering the quality of student, eventually causing a removal of the joke programs from the field and that's exactly why it will never happen.

I really don't think adding two more year will deter MOST people from pursuing a PharmD degree. My impression now is that most people who got into pharm school have a 4-year degree. The solution that will have the greatest and quickest positive impact in decreasing the outflow of pharmacists in the market is to decrease amount of spots available by preventing schools from opening...

I agree with BesDoctorEver.

@FarmACollegeE: who is setting admission requirement anyway ?? Is it you or me ?? No. It is the schools who set the admission standards. Bachelor degree or not, the quality of the admitted will drop when there are more and more schools. Simply supply and demand. So if we can do something to slow down or stop this mad increasing trend, the many problems from this crazy expansion of pharm schools will be solved, admission standards included.

regarding the bachelor degree requirements, read this for some perspective,

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/why-is-the-american-md-so-long.1064589/

the point is that the rest of the world is not having any trouble to produce quality and caring healthcare workers without requiring a bachelor degree for med, dental, or pharm schools. Don't even think that their admission standards are low or not competitive either. In fact, it is cut-throat. The quality of their healthcare professionals is also top-notch. Why ?? They do not allow schools popping up like crazy. Demand and supply again baby 🙂 And do not tell me that they are not free markets as I am talking about first world countries like UK, France, Germany, Australia, etc. And yeah, the US is no free market either if you bother to look up the definition 😉

 

[vasoolraja]

I think the pharmacy professional societies may be able to influence powerful people and bring about a change. If we can donate more money to the professional societies and increase their funds significantly to lobby and influence powerful people, may be things will work better.

 

[oldstock]

I think the pharmacy professional societies may be able to influence powerful people and bring about a change. If we can donate more money to the professional societies and increase their funds significantly to lobby and influence powerful people, may be things will work better.

I agree that we need to be a political force and lobby for our own interests. But call me a pessimist, I do not have high hope for ACPE and AACP or any other pharmacy associations out there. You have already seen ACPE stated explicitly that their job is only to accredit pharmacy programs, and they do not care about the numbers of schools as this country is a "free market" and limiting schools would "violate" anti-trust laws, and if there are more pharmacists, the "best of the best" will survive etc. Also, AACP is there to represent schools, not pharmacy students. I have not heard anything about any pharmacy associations out there doing anything regarding this problem. But if they had wanted to bring change and help to solve this problem, we would have already heard about it.

I think we should join HobbitJane to make some noises now. Write to your state boards of pharmacy, local representatives, Secretary of Department of Education, and media, etc. With enough noises, even if we cannot stop this mad expansion, we will bring more attention and awareness to the public about this problem. This is what we can easily do and anyone can do this if want to. It is more effective to go about this problem than contribute money to those pharmacy associations. Honestly I do not trust they will do anything for us students. Our money would probably not make a little dent in their budgets for them to even move their fingers.